My bad, I should have been clearer. I was talking about US teenagers, as both Tsar and Magnum are American. Of course everyone could go abroad looking for virgin teenagers, knocking on house doors or hanging around the local high schools...the kind of stuff that would make even Roosh look like a mature playboyJester wrote:You are conjuring phony statistics. Most 16-year-old girls who are not married or engaged, are indeed virgins. Period.publicduende wrote:...what happens when you crash against the simple realisation that even a majority of 16 years olds will have had a couple of boyfriends, fooled around and probably had penetrative sex? ....
The world is bigger than you think.
Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.
View Active Topics View Your Posts Latest 100 Topics FAQ Topics Mobile Friendly Theme
Discuss and talk about any general topic.
Last edited by publicduende on February 22nd, 2013, 12:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Look, I know you and Magnum have good intentions. Still, one has to live in the present. Girls of yesteryear were, on average, more mature and virtuous because society forced them to grow up quickly through hardship and discipline, and prepared them for their role of wives and mothers by that age. They had no other opportunities, no other choice.
Girls have choices now. Just like the boys, they can enjoy life a lot more, go to school and university and express their passions and abilities in the same arenas as their male counterparts, explore the world and the fabric of society, get their hands dirty and learn from mistakes as well as successes. So let's not be unnecessarily prudish: engaging in sexual activity of some description at some point after puberty, with all the good and bad that comes with it, is just as part of growing up as it is climbing trees, being bullied and fighting back, crying at the movies and swallowing a bad mark at school.
Don't want to sound like Mr. Miyagi now, but if the girl has been nested in a solid, loving and balanced family, chances are she will have been given the kind of upbringing and moral coordinates to pursue her ambitions without forgetting that her biology will at some point scream for a stable love and motherhood, and live her sexual life without having to turn into a mindless slut. Most of my high school classmates in a mid-size town in Southern Italy (not quite the liberated metropolis) had their first sexual experiences between 15 and 17, like me. And I'm sure they had their fair share of successful and failed relationships, and perhaps a few flings in between. None of them have turned into sluts or feminist militants from hell. And I could tell that would be the case without having to track their moves, because I knew most of their families, and knew what kind of "moral antibodies" against depravation they had.
So, you're right about a girl's innocence leading her to either direction. The point is, those directions should have been given much earlier, since childhood, and by her own family. The idea of a "mature boyfriend" imposing himself as an additional role model in exchange for a full relationship, obviously involving sex, is a common myth circulating among paedophiles or socially/sexually impaired men.
I know your intentions are honourable. However, it's much better to look for a girl, not necessarily a virgin, who had a good family upbringing and has the maturity and judgment to enter a happy relationship with a man a few years her senior, than try to woo an immature teenager in the hope to "freeze" her in her virginal purity.
Wow. I'm surprised no one here has mentioned yet the higher divorce rate among non-virgins who lost their virginity to another partner.
*IF* you are going to marry someone, then virginity is very important. It is perhaps the most important indicator on the long term success of your marriage.
The following data was presented by TheSocialPathologist which is the result of the Heritage Foundation using data from the CDC.
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/201 ... -slut.html
Notice that if a woman has had even 1 other person that she's slept with before marriage the chance of divorce is nearly 50%. Two or more men and you are on the losing side of a bet.
If you want to avoid divorce, just don't get married. But, if you absolutely must get married, then I can only recommend you marry a virgin and even then your chances of divorce are still about 20%.
I don't think even American 16 year olds are that bad. Besides, you can usually guess who's a virgin and who's not.
I get what you mean about maturity publicduende. Like I said, my last relationship didn't work out because she was too emotionally immature for me. I still care about virginity though. I just don't want to adapt to what I see as societal decadence. I mean, I don't think most women should be going for anything but Mrs. Degrees. It's not necessarily that I think women are less intelligent. Just that they naturally make decisions emotionally, which is a recipe for disaster in most traditionally male careers.
It's important to remember these things aren't mutually exclusive. Someone can still be very mature and care about virginity. I've known at least two girls like that. One had other problems and I fear she'll wind up a single mother. The other was pretty much my dream girl. Or at least as far as I've seen, though going by what Jester said she may only be half as good as what's out there. Probably the type Tsar would like too, though I agree it helps to have emotional maturity. Sexual maturity I'm not sure I agree with.
I mean, my first kiss on the lips was when I was eight and I kissed my thirty year old babysitter. I'm not a prude, but I have a certain set of values.
I'm not exactly religious, or maybe I can say I'm reluctantly religious, but if I were here's what I'd say: Sex has two roles, procreation and pleasure. I don't disagree with the sexual libertines on this. Yet disassociating the two just seems sterile. So I can understand Catholics like Tsar not liking contraceptives, which again I know are pretty ancient. I also think people should be sexually active as soon as they become sexually developed. If God didn't mean for thirteen year olds to have sex then he wouldn't allow them to. Could someone argue that's just God's test against temptation? Well that just sounds ridiculous. The real problem is that there aren't safe institutions for sex. To me, teen pregnancy isn't a problem, but the fact that we have a society that arrests development is. Teenagers in Western societies aren't raised to be mature enough for it. Besides, in older eras it wasn't as if teen mothers were all on their own anyway. This leads back to the idea of the disillusion of the family. Again, we have a society where kids are treated like kids for eighteen years then pushed out of the house. In a different era it would have been that kids matured much faster, but stayed in the family household much longer. I wish there was still a more transactional role for marriage. This doesn't necessarily preclude the role of love. But there are two choices in modern Western society: adapt, or put off having sex. I choose the latter in hope of riding out the storm. I don't think a society that promotes the current type of sexuality is sustainable in the long term. It's a Sexual Communism that reflects a further Communization of all aspects of society. Just one manifestation of the zeitgeist.
I agree that sex is for procreation and pleasure but it's also for bonding. I know my beliefs are unique among the current mainstream views but I can't and won't compromise.
"Good always triumphs over evil in the end, people who follow the path of goodness generally succeed."
Just because it's expected that men should accept women regardless of their sex histories doesn't mean I will. I know it's unusual for someone my age to reject a girl over that but I would. Why should I conform to expectations that I do not agree with? I won't conform, I will resist society's wrong expectations. I know that in the end because I am a good person, I will triumph over an evil society.
I have brought up a similar divorce chart from the same website. The women with zero non-marital sex partners have about 86% stable stable marriage rates.
Bringing up Sexual Communism a good point. Women are meant to have fidelity to one man. Fidelity and virginity are two traits that according to tradition women are suppose to give to one man.
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/08/ ... uld-admit/
This article is a must read related to this discussion topic.
Dee SSSHVISSS do it daht vay?! Vell den! Dat shettels dat, by Gott und Himmel!
Vee mussen doen dat shame ting!!
disillusion ---> dissolution
transactional ---> transitional
pssst - spellcheck is your enemy!
Not trying to be an asshole here...
...it just comes naturally.
Nope. Totally wrong. Common misconception, though.
It pleased God to make a real physical world, where his people have to strive and fight in order to triumph. If you want to see how God makes a miracle, watch the movie "Zulu".
Or if you want to see a great movie about Free Will in the context of innocent young love, I reccomend "A Little Romance". Watching this fan-made trailer from 7:30 on gives the basic idea of this poetic movie:
So the point is, no you will NOT win because you are good.
You are good.......... so go win.
Last edited by Jester on February 23rd, 2013, 7:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Technically disillusion and transactional work in those contexts without changing the meaning. By transactional I meant bride prices and the like. Disillusion refers to the family being a social construct. Still, I use a tablet, so typing's a little harder, but it's a worthy trade off.
Look at these two guys, PublicDuende and DJFourmoney. These are two of the biggest f***ing Manginas I have ever seen post who didnt outright claim to be Hugo-type male feminists. Simply unbelievable. The good part is, they are a good sounding board for the other men to make rebuttals. But from now on, if there is a post by either of these two, I will be skipping them.
A good man is above pettiness. He is better than that.